Tag Archives: belief

I talked about brand drivers and statements of relevant differentiation in school last week. And yes there are a lot of good, smart, creative brands out there taking a relevant and different approach, finding themselves a proper position on the market.

But what is the leap to become a great super brand, something more than just a shelf share competitor?

First I think we have to leave the general thinking of just products and specific categories. As Colin Drummond, Head of Planning at Ogilvy West, claims:

Instead of just thinking about how our brands can differentiate on the basis of product or service attribute, we must think about how our brands can differentiate within culture.

Traditionally, marketers place brands in different categories and divide them into segments. But this limits the product’s meaning as whole, because great brands are never only in the product category. I think they also contribute to culture at large.

Great brands have strong beliefs. Great brands don’t have to give any reasons for why consumers actually should buy them. Great brands can exclude any product benefits from their adverts. In fact, at the risk of sounding nonchalant, I would say that your products oftentimes actually don’t need any technical innovations or even benefits at all.

There are no rational reasons (beside the free SMS/text service) or extra benefits that motivates youths to choose the Swedish mobile operator Halebop. Interesting reactions nonetheless.

Apple may not have the best of all smart-phones, the most technical nor the most innovative phones. Yet, the iPhone’s 4% market share volume-wise ends up to 50% of the total industry profit. Talk about a high margin product! And well-executed branding.

Starbucks may not have the very best macchiato. But who cares? A lot of us go to Starbucks to get our macchiato anyway, if not for the coffee so for the place to meet. However, Starbucks nowadays seems to have forgotten the main reason it was founded, which leads it to fail because too much focus is on its own product and category. (Read more about the danger of being blinded by your own product.)

The list continues: Domino’s pizza is probably far from being the best pizza you can get and ABSOLUT is definitely not the very best vodka.

Well, I think you get the picture: A great brand makes it easier to sell your product with higher margins without actually having the best product within its category.

The simple reason for this is that great brands are almost always much more than just a product or a category. Consequently, the recipe for success in many industries is to change your brand thinking from merely products and categories to include thinking in terms of culture. But also about to not become hung up about what kind of needs consumers might have or not have. One year ago I didn’t need an iPhone and, at this very moment, I don’t need an iPad. I do have an iPhone now, and I probably will have an iPad within a year or two

In short, it’s all about creating demand through understanding your consumers’ lifestyles and the context of the brand’s sociological role. And when you have a brand that people want to interact with, that people want to buy because the brand tells a story about them, then you are getting closer to creating a great super brand.

The Problem: I have not been in the business for long, but I have already come across brand managers rigorously protecting their brands instead of creating what could be part of something more than just another product category. But it shouldn’t be the brand managers who act as brand advocates – it should be the consumers.

The Solution: Extending the brand’s philosophical attributes instead of the physical ones.

What is it then with culture as a brand driver versus benefits on a product level? Here are some brands that, instead of dramatizing product features, focus on culture as well as on a more philosophical differentiation.

ABSOLUT
So much more than just a spirituous beverage – “Doing things differently leads to something exceptional”:

Puma
Celebrating the real supporter and football culture. No shoes, no products – just a wider perspective of the meaning and life of the brand. This is a masterstroke as Adidas, the number one competitor, is synonymous with this football culture:

Apple
No one humanizes technical products as Apple does. In everything they execute they try to have human and emotional touch-points, starting with the very simple logo in the form of an apple with no direct link to what they actually produce. Below is one of the classic Apple ads; there are no products exposed (as is often the case in Apple ads these days), and it’s not needed ether. Apple is a brand that customers immediately understand:

Burger King
Finally a really funny one from Burger King – “What if”. What would happen if there were no whoppers at Burger King anymore? Bear in mind that whopper is a part of the American culture:

Things to do (or at least try to):

Think: Which culture – or perhaps movement – could be relevant for your brand, instead of which category to expand into.

Make: Always strive to make advertising based on the preferences of the consumer and her lifestyle, not your client’s.

Stop: Don’t measure gross rating point in the classic manner. Instead, try to measure how many who actually choose to look at your ad or really want/wanted to do so. (Read more here.)

And finally, challenge the status quo – all that seems to be “normal”. The most disliked and sometimes hated stars are at the same time quite often the most loved by their supporters. Why wouldn’t the same apply to company and product brands?

Think for instance about why Diego Maradona actually is that adored? He is also one of the most disliked football players ever. He as a brand stands for something beyond football itself, on very controversial standpoints sometimes, and for both good and bad, but this gives you a hint of what I’m aiming at.

If your brand has a philosophical vision beyond the product, and if it strives to claim a place in the culture instead of only on the shelves, then people who like it are going to do that even more and in a deeper sense than if your brand is the average “trying-to-be-liked-by-everyone brand”. People will talk about your brand, and instead of the conventional thinking of product and categories it will become an active part of the culture.

After all, that is the best statement of relevant differentiation your brand can ever get.

The picture at the top is Grayson Perry’s The Walthamstow Tapestry. The textile can be read left to right, starting with a bloody scene of childbirth then continuing with depictions of the seven ages of man, through childhood, adulthood and eventually to death. Around these large human figures teem hundreds of smaller images and words. The words are brand names, detached from their products but leaving behind them, Grayson Perry says, the aroma of the particular values they convey.

I’m being serious. No matter if you’re a company, a non-profit, an executive, a politician, a CEO or just an average Joe – do you know what you believe?

And I don’t mean a list of things. I mean the one, overriding belief that guides all the decisions you make.

If you’re a leader of some sort and the answer is no, then how do you know who to hire? How do you know what message to put out to employees to inspire loyalty? What message to tell your customers to inspire them to buy from you? How do you know when you’re being authentic or not?

If you’re not a leader, how do you know what job to take? How do you decide what leader you should follow, to give your undying loyalty? How do you know which companies truly have your best interests in mind?

It’s pretty important to know, no?

_

Here’s the test. Grab a piece of paper and write a sentence that starts with “I believe…”

But there are some rules:

You must only write one sentence.

And you may not use any of the following words:

Best (or similar qualifier),

Quality,

Price,

Service,

Features,

Innovation or innovative and, most importantly,

You may not mention what you do or any product or service you sell.

If you can write one sentence that feels right, then you’re well on your way to knowing your Why.

If you’re up for the challenge, and you’d like to email your results, send them to Ibelieve@sinekpartners.com and I’ll get back to you to help in any way I can.

_
P.S. I did the test – and here’s my belief:

I believe that no matter how smart you are or how good your ideas are, the only way to thrive in the world is if you have the ability to inspire those around you.

Walt Disney was the visionary, the man who took the risk, but his brother, Roy Disney, brought the dream to life.

Martin Luther King was the man with the dream, but it was Ralph Abernathy, a man whose name has been long forgotten, who stood up after Dr. King and told people what to do.

Bill Gates was the Why guy who imagined a PC on every desk. Bill Gates imagined a world in which we would all be able to achieve our true potential. But it was Paul Allen, lurking in the shadows, who knew How to make it happen.

No matter how clear the vision, no matter how high the risk tolerance, a leader is nothing without the first person to stand up and join.

For a movement to grow, for an idea to spread and for a company to become something special – it takes two.

The dancer is Why. The first follower is How. When those two unite – watch What happens._

The fans watching the game in a local sports bar in New York went wild. They cheered and celebrated. They couldn’t believe their team had done it. This was possibly one of the great upsets in sports.

An ocean away, fans watching in a pub in London were devastated. How could this have happened? Their team should have won.

And so it was. The final score recorded into history to mark this occasion. 1:1. That’s right, the final score was 1:1 – the US soccer team had tied the British team in the first round of 2010 World Cup. The Americans celebrated the win. The Brits mourned the loss.

But the last time I checked, 1:1 was a tie. There was no winner and there was no loser.

Or was there?

The final score, as it turns out, does not exist in a vacuum. A score may be an objective measurement of achievement, but its value is a relative measurement to our expectations.

An “A” student who gets a B, for example, feels disappointment. A “C” student who gets a B feels ecstatic. Their objective achievement is the same, but their feelings toward their grade, the value of their grade to them, is relative to the expectations others had for them.

This is what happened in the World Cup game. The British were the A students and the Americans were the C students. And in this case – the Americans were able to match the might of the British.

It was, in relative terms, a win.

The definition of ”winning”, then, includes a subjective element – when what we actually achieve surpasses the expectations others think we could achieve. The American team believed they could match the British, even if everyone else thought they couldn’t. Had the American team bought into the expectations others had for them, then their loss would have been inevitable because they would have played believing they had to lose.

Expectations are different from hopes or desires. Expectations are a calculation. They come from the evaluation of data – the British team was much better. They had won more games. Their players were objectively better, and so on. Even if American fans hoped their team would win, based on the data, they didn’t think they could win.

This is what makes the underdog so appealing. What the underdog believes they can do goes beyond what others think they can do. Though we root for the underdog, we still expect them to lose. It’s rational. This is why belief in oneself, confidence, is so important.

Success is when reality catches up to your imagination.

The innovator believes something can be done when others think it can’t. The entrepreneur believes a solution exists for a problem others think unsolvable (if they even recognize the problem in the first place).

And this is why optimists are the most important people of all. They believe every one of us can achieve more than we think we can. They push us and they inspire us. They are able to convert our rational assessment of our abilities (thinking) into drive and passion (belief).

The American coach inspired his team to believe they could do something others thought they couldn’t. All great leaders do. They fundamentally believe in people and what they can do.

As for the lesson: If you’re doing things that everyone around you thinks you can achieve, and all the evidence would support their thoughts, then you’re not pushing yourself hard enough.

That doesn’t mean working towards some ridiculous goal that even you don’t believe is possible. Rational achievement happens based on the score. The feeling of achievement, however, comes when you work to the limit of your own beliefs, and if that limit goes beyond what others think you can do you will feel like you won. Even if you only achieve partial success. Even if you only tie the game, those who didn’t think you could do it will start to believe in you, too.

And when people believe in you, they will rally for you, support you, send resources your way, introduce you to people and help pave the way for you to succeed.

And that’s when objective success is easier to achieve.

Though the facts may remain the same, they will support you for no other reason than they now believe in you and think you can do it, too.

It all started in 1885. Grover Cleveland was president of the United States when George Eastman introduced roll film, the invention that paved the way for the development of the motion picture. The film business was such a good business, in fact, that Eastman’s company, Kodak, went on to form an entirely new company whose sole purpose was to manufacture the chemicals needed to develop their film.

In 1936, Kodak introduced 35mm film and life was good.

But then, in 1975, Kodak did something horrible: they invented the digital camera. You heard me right, Kodak invented the digital camera in the 1970s. This was not good. Fearing their new invention would eat away at film and chemical sales, Kodak worked to suppress the new technology.

Kodak made the biggest mistake possible.

As Zig Ziegler said: ”People don’t buy drills, they buy holes”. And Kodak ignored the hole to protect the drill.

Instead of building a business around why people use film, they set out to protect the film itself. No company can suppress an advancement in technology, and certainly not for such a selfish reason as to preserve the status quo to maintain sales of one piece of intellectual property.

And in 1999 it all started to unravel.

Just as digital photography was starting to gain momentum, Kodak’s stock traded at about $80. It has been a steady decline since and now their stock rarely goes beyond between $4 – $5 a share.

The massive loss of money notwithstanding, Kodak has been forced to lay off thousands of workers to stay in business. All because they focused on what they were selling at the expense of why people were buying it.

Imagine if Kodak embraced the reason the film existed and let go of the film. They would be THE pioneer in digital photography.

To paraphrase Seth Godin, the goal is not to find customers for your products, it’s to make products for your customers.

Sadly, other industries were too busy protecting their drills while ignoring the holes to notice what happened to Kodak. The music industry was too busy trying to protect DVDs and an album culture as the world around them moved to an mp3 and song culture. They tried to suppress the spread of mp3s by running around suing 13 year olds.

Even my own publisher, Penguin Books, which is now living in a digital book world, refused to let me give away my book on Kindle for free for a week for fear that it would, and I quote, ”eat away at hard cover sales”. People don’t want a paper-bound book, they want the ideas contained within that book.

Companies obsessed with protecting their intellectual property forget that people are actually buying the application of their intellectual property – why the product exists.

The ones that understand this are the ones that find new and different ways to help people get that application they want regardless the form the intellectual property takes. Call it open source, if you want, the companies who embrace the philosophy are the leaders and the innovators.

Starbucks was founded with a clear sense of Why – that purpose, cause or belief that goes beyond the products we make or the services we offer. At its founding, it was all about the ”third space”, that space between work and home. When Americans chose to hang-out outside of home or work, Starbucks wanted to be that place where they hang-out.

And for many years, they were.

But, like so many companies that make it big, Starbucks forgot the reason it was founded and started to think it was their product that made them successful. Put simply, Starbucks has lost its Why.

This is significant, because it is the Why that is the source of great innovation in a company. It is that founding purpose that gives a company a filter – clarity about the things they should do and the things they shouldn’t do. If the filter gets fuzzy, then the ability to see clearly goes away. And if the ability to see clearly goes away, then how will a company know if they are traveling in the right direction?

Without a clear sense of direction, there is increased focus on product tactics and product strategy and the blinding effect takes hold. Unable to see beyond product will cause the results to falter. As the results falter, the focus on the product becomes more intense. And so the vicious cycle begins.

Starbucks was founded around the experience and the environment of their stores. Starbucks was about a space with comfortable chairs, lots of power outlets, tables and desks at which we could work and the option to spend as much time in their stores as we wanted without any pressure to buy. The coffee was incidental.

With that clear filter, it’s easy to see the things Starbucks should and shouldn’t do. It’s easy to see opportunities to enhance the experience that have nothing to do with coffee. With a clear sense of Why, it makes perfect sense that Starbucks should offer free WiFi to their “guests”. But the haze over Starbuck’s filter has created product blindness and, these days, Starbucks misses the obvious; they didn’t offer their guests free WiFi.

McDonald’s did.

In January of 2010 McDonald’s, just one of the many companies that has capitalized on Starbucks fuzzy Why, started offering free WiFi in all their stores. Feeling the pressure, Starbucks was forced to follow suit six months later.

That a burger joint credited with pioneering the fast-food industry – an industry focused on getting customers in and out as quickly as possible – forced Starbucks to adjust their store experience is a big deal. Just as Apple doesn’t compete with any other computer companies or Harley-Davidson isn’t just another motorcycle, Starbucks shouldn’t be lumped in with everyone that sells coffee. But these days they are, and they have themselves to blame for it.

Starbucks has forgotten about the third space. It has become obsessed with coffee and brushed aside why they were selling coffee in the first place. Blinded by their own product and distracted from their founding purpose, it was Starbucks who invited lots of other players to the table and reduced their own value in the lives of Americans.

We can get coffee anywhere, but not everywhere makes a good third space. If Starbucks wants to make it about the product and not the experience, then they open themselves up to even more competition and even more attacks.

At the end of the day, coffee isn’t worth $4 – but an experience and a comfortable environment is.

Product blindness and missing the obvious is just one symptom of a fuzzy Why. Another is when a company gets distracted by the actions of the competition. Though I haven’t talked to anyone from Starbucks about this, I’ll bet good money that they have become increasingly interested in what McDonald’s or Dunkin’ Donuts is doing these days.

Obsessing about what everyone else is doing over what you are doing is like driving down the highway watching the drivers to the left and right of you. Sure you’ll be able to see how fast they are driving and in what direction, the problem is you won’t see where you’re going.

Companies with a clear sense of Why set the tone and direction in their respective industries. They lead and others look to follow them.

Suffering severe product blindness, however, these days Starbucks is looking for others to follow.